Site Analysis This page is dedicated to analyzing the website www.IfAmericansKnew.org and pointing out and correcting all lies, inaccuracies, and distortions of the site.

NOTE: This page is NOT a personal attack against Alison. It is a critique of her website and her organization. This page encourages those who disagree with Alison and her organization to dispute the contents of her site in a civilized manner using the facts provided on this page, and STRONGLY DISCOURAGES any form of personal or physical attacks against Alison, anyone in her organization, or anyone supportive of her organization.

                    Contents of this Page

                    Alison Weir

                    Statistics

                    U.N. Resolutions

                    Aid to Israel/Palestine

                    History

                    The "Jewish-Only Roads"

                          Torture

                     Terrorist or Resistance Fighter?

                     Media Bias

                     Bulletin on Suicide Bombing

                     Prisoners Vs Hostages *NEW

                     IfAmericansKnew Influence

                     Weir's Credibility

                     Reader Comments

                         Alison Weir, founder

                                 of IfAmericansKnew.org

              Click HERE to see a criticism of this analysis

Alison Weir
Alison is the founder if the anti-Israel site and organization, IfAmericansKnew. Alison spent one month in Gaza to observe the living conditions of the Palestinians. Alison had a first hand glimpse of the suffering that the Palestinians have been enduring, and she makes no hesitations in dramatizing it for propaganda. However, despite Alison's extensive knowledge on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict she has failed to look deep enough into the conflict to understand why the Palestinians are suffering and living under miserable conditions. She blames Israel for the Palestinian's suffering and totally disregards the Palestinians' real enemies. Nowhere on her site does she mention the corruption of their former leader, Yessir Arafat. Alison makes no mention of the Palestinian terrorist groups who commit murder and terrorism against civilians in the name of the Palestinians which result in Israeli incursions into the territories. Weir makes no mention of the leaders of surrounding Arab nations that are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Israeli/Palestinian conflict going. She ONLY blames Israel for the Palestinians' suffering. Alison is a very talented writer. It is too bad she has used her talent to promote bigotry and confusion on the middle east.

We are going to go through the many sections of the site to expose the inaccuracies and deceptions.

Statistics
Deaths
On the front page of IfAmericansKnew there are statistics such as "total Israeli/Palestinian deaths" and "total Israeli/Palestinian children killed" and "total Israeli/Palestinian houses demolished" etc. The statistics are meant to show that Palestinians are dying more and suffering more than the Israelis. They show that some 4100 Palestinians have been killed and "only" some 1020 Israelis have been killed. Or 943 Palestinian children killed and "only" 118 Israeli children killed (number of Israeli children killed actually dropped since March 2007 form 123).

This is directly from IfAmericansKnew:

1,023 Israelis and at least 4,160 Palestinians *have been killed since September 29, 2000.

*this used to say 'Palestinians killed by Israelis'

IfAmericansKnew is referring to Israel's policy of demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists, their families, and houses used for terrorist purposes as a deterrent against terrorism. What Weir doesn't mention on the site is the only time a Palestinian house would be demolished is when the house belongs to a terrorist or a family member of a terrorist or if the house was used to promote terrorism. (Israel does have a practice of demolishing homes that were built without a "permit". This practice is wrong, but happens far less than IfAmericansKnew implies). Israel NEVER randomly bulldozes houses just for fun as this site implies and they NEVER bulldoze homes when people are inside. The ONLY purpose of this policy is to create a deterrent for would be suicide bombers and terrorists. This statistic seems to imply that the Palestinians have never 'demolished' an Israeli home. IfAmericansKnew doesn't mention that Palestinians constantly launch kassams and missiles at Israeli homes, including homes in Israel-proper. The missiles may not cause as much damage as bulldozer, but many Israeli homes have been hit and one must also take into account the feeling of terror that Israelis never know when a missile is going to hit.  Off course the Palestinians haven't 'demolished' Israeli homes. They don't have the means to. Imagine if Caterpillar gave the Palestinians bulldozers. Since many Palestinian fighters have no hesitation destroying houses of Israeli civilians with kassams and mortars, there can be no doubt that if they had bulldozers, they would take them into Israeli towns and bulldoze any house they can find with or without people in them. It is the intention that counts. If the Palestinians had the means to demolish homes, they would.

U.N. Resolutions
The front page IfAmericansKnew has a statistic about U.N. resolutions targeting Israel and the Palestinians.

As for the site's second allegation about Israel's occupation being the cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians have been offered their own state many times throughout history. The first time, in 1937, the Peel Commission laid out a plan which would createa Jewish state the fraction of the size of Israel, and an enormous Arab state in Palestine. (see map HERE) The Zionists, while disappointed, accepted this plan, and the Arabs flatly rejected it. Again in 1947, UN Resolution 181 offered the Palestinians 45% of the land; the Jews accepted it, and the arabs rejected it. The Palestinians continue to reject resolution 181, which is meant to create their own state. Again in 1993, 2000, and 2003, the Palestinians screwed up every chance of statehood and autonomy on their own land. The Gaza pullout in 2005 offered the Palestinians a chance to make peace with Israel and eventually lead to a state, instead the Palestinians used Gaza as a launching pad for more attacks against Israel and kidnapping attempts. The Palestinians would have land and their own state if they would recognize Israel and stop terrorism.

The "Jewish-only Roads"
IfAmericansKnew makes many references to "Jewish-only" roads that are built on Palestinian land and supposedly is only allowed to be driven on by Jews. Here is one example from the site: "as [the Palestinians] are not allowed to live in Israeli settlements, drive on Jewish-only roads connecting these settlements" IfAmericansKnew makes reference to this "Jewish-only" road many times throughout the site. The Israelis have built roads on Palestinians territory in which the Palestinians are banned from driving on. (And for the record TheMiddleEastNow.com condemns Israel for this policy) However, the roads are NOT "Jewish-only". People of all religions and ethnicities are allowed to travel on these roads as long as they are Israeli citizens or foreigners. While one may not condone Israel's policy of banning Palestinians from driving on roads built on Palestinian land, it is not fair and downright inaccurate to claim that the roads are "Jewish-only" as IfAmericansKnew does. 


Torture
IfAmericansKnew mentions at least a hundred times that Israel 'tortures' innocent Palestinians. Here is an example:

"...I talked to men who had been tortured..."

In past decades there have been many reports of Palestinians being tortured by Israelis. Israel has used interrogation techniques similar to that of Abu Graihb, such as hooding prisoners, shaking them, playing loud music, etc. These have been documented by many human rights groups and even admitted by the Israeli government. However in 1999 the Israeli supreme court issued a ruling making it illegal for Israel to use any form of torture against anyone for any reason even for purposes of attaining life saving information. All forms of torture including 'pressure positions', hooding, and sleep deprivation were outlawed. The supreme court acknowledged that this ruling would restrict interrogation techniques for interrogators and that, in turn, could cost the lives of Israeli citizens. This ruling made Israel the ONLY country in the world whose supreme court has specifically outlawed torture even when it might save lives. Not even America has done that yet. That's in deep contrast to many of Israel's neighbors who constantly engage in torture of even political prisoners! Even the Palestinian Authority regularly engages in torture against Palestinians!. Yet IfAmericansKnew, which is supposed to be a "pro-Palestinian" site, mysteriously makes no mention of Arafat and Hamas' frequent torture of Palestinians. Since the 1999 supreme court decision, the abusive techniques used by Israel have been greatly reduced (there have been a few reports about violations). IfAmericansKnew, once again, misleads its readers by implying the torture techniques are continuing at the same or increasing frequency to this day. The site has a source for the above quote. http://www.ppsmo.org/ewebsite/Reports/Israeli%20Tourture%20July%202002.htm. First of all, this is a dead link now. Secondly the site belongs to a group calling itself "Palestinian Prisoner Society". Judging by the dead link, it can be implied that many of the 'stories' on the site are old, perhaps before 1999. We should also remember that many (but certainly not all) Palestinian prisoners have been known to fabricate details of their imprisonment for purposes of propaganda. This fabrication practice is encouraged by Palestinian extremist groups and many others in the Arab world.

Terrorist or Resistance Fighter?
What is possibly the most disturbing aspect of IfAmericansKnew is they appear to condone Palestinian terrorism. They refer to terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad as resistance fighters and glorify their deeds. The site has an article called "The Palestinian Resistance: Its Legitimate Right and Moral Duty" by Samah Jabr. The author of this article refers to the suicide bombings as resistance. Terrorism is defined as: "the unlawful use or threatened use of force by a person or an organized group against innocent people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons" If the Palestinians were attacking the Israeli soldiers that were enforcing the occupation, or the government of Israel, THEN their acts could be considered "resistance". However since the majority of the Palestinian attacks directly target innocent Israeli civilians who have nothing to do with their government's policies, and since their acts do nothing to end the occupation and are meant solely for intimidation, these acts cannot be classified as legitimate resistance and can only be viewed as terrorism. Lets go though this article line by line and point out its inaccuracies and distortions.

"The occupation of Palestine is based on a 19th century ideology that denied the very existence of the Palestinian people and pursued a colonial agenda asserting divine claims to a “land without a people.”

This claim is incorrect. Before 1948 there was no such thing as a Palestinian. And there was no national movement by the Palestinians until 1967. This analysis already established earlier that the creation Israel was not 'colonial' since when the Jews began immigrating to current day Israel in the 1870's there was no idea of Zionism yet.

"International law grants a people fighting an illegal occupation the right to use “all necessary means at their disposal” to end their occupation"

Suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism do nothing to end the occupation or help the Palestinian people, and the militants know that. Their purpose is to coerce and intimidate the Israeli people. It was the  so called "resistance" that brought the Israeli soldiers back IN to the territories to begin with. Whoever is organizing these attacks against Israel knows by now that they wont end the occupation or any other of the Palestinian's problems by using terrorism.

"Armed resistance was used in the American Revolution, the Afghan resistance against Russia (which the U.S. supported), the French resistance against the Nazis, and even in the Nazi concentration camps, or, more famously, in the Warsaw Ghetto. Palestinian resistance arises out of a similarly oppressive situation."

So this writer is actually comparing Israeli soldiers to Nazis. One thing he is forgetting is in all those examples: never did the "oppressed peoples" intentionally kill civilians of the other side. During WW2 many Jews made attempts to fight the Nazi oppression. However not in ONE SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE did a Jew EVER kill an innocent German civilian. Same thing with the French and Poles who were under Nazi oppression. During the American revolution, the colonists may have attacked British soldiers who were trying to rule them, but NEVER did a colonist attack a British civilian. This is unlike the Palestinian "resistance" groups who regularly target innocent Israeli civilians. It appears the author is either unaware of documented history or is making a blatant attempt to distort it.

"Violent resistance arises from an inhuman military occupation, one that levies punishment arbitrarily and without trial, denies the possibility of livelihood and systematically destroys the prospects of a future."

He's got it the other way around. It is the violent "resistance" by extremist groups that has caused the Palestinian's suffering. Had this "resistance" not started in 2000 Israel would not have reoccupied the territories

Media Bias
The basic message that the site is trying to give is that they believe the American media is heavily bias towards Israel. They  use the "bias media" to justify why Americans are "unaware" of the outrageous claims IfAmericansKnew makes against Israel. Weir claims in all her "media analysis'" that major news media outlets in America under-report Palestinian deaths and over-report Israeli deaths. She accuses the media of censoring news that could be considered critical of Israel. She claims that news reports on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict fail to discuss the history of the conflict. She goes even further to claim that Israel tries to intimidate journalists (truth is the other way around, see below) IfAmericansKnew does several media analysis' on various media sources to observe reporting patterns on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. One such analysis was done on the New York Times. After reviewing her study, it was clear that there were some serious flaws in the way she conducted her research.

New York Times Study
The 2005 New York Times study claims "the Times reported Israeli deaths at rates up to seven to ten times greater than Palestinian deaths," and that this discrepancy is "based on the ethnicity of the person killed." It further purports that "Times reporting regularly gave readers the impression that equal numbers of people on both sides were being killed – or that more Israelis were being killed," and that "the majority of Palestinian deaths ... are never reported by the Times at all."

The bulk of the study is based only on the headline and first paragraph – often just one sentence – of New York Times news reports, and completely ignores the remaining text of the articles. In other words, most of the news reports condemned by the study are not even read.

Only by ignoring most of the news coverage in this way can Weir reach her conclusions. Take, for example, the declaration that "Times reporting regularly gave readers the impression that equal numbers of people on both sides were being killed." This claim is quickly disproved with a glance at the newspaper's full coverage, since Times stories frequently cite casualty figures.

During the first year of violence (one of Weir's "study periods"), Times readers were told:

At least 20 Palestinians and 10 Israelis have died in a cycle of violence that has barely abated since the cease-fire took effect on June 13. Since the Palestinian uprising began last September, at least 479 Palestinians, 124 Israelis and 13 Israeli Arabs have been killed. ("Israeli Tanks Shell Palestinian Police Posts in Response to Attacks", 7/12/01)

The death toll in this conflict is nearing 700. Though figures are somewhat imprecise, the count is put at about 525 Palestinians, 155 Israeli Jews and 14 Israeli Arabs, whose casualties came almost entirely in the intifada's earliest days. ("Israelis and Palestinians Prepare for a Long Struggle," 8/17/01)

At least 580 Palestinians and 167 Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian uprising began a year ago. ("More Violence, and Western Peace Efforts, in the Middle East," 9/18/01)

Clearly, the Times does not mislead readers about the number of fatalities sustained by both sides. If anything, it would be more accurate to say that such casualty breakdowns downplay Israeli deaths – readers are informed that more Palestinians than Israelis have died, but are not told that most of the Israeli victims were non-combatants targeted by Palestinians, whereas Palestinian fatalities were overwhelmingly combatants or Palestinians killed by other Palestinians.

Weir also falsely states that most Palestinian deaths "are never reported by the Times at all," again basing this contention only on the headline and first sentence or two of news stories. In fact, Weir's own numbers belie this claim. In the one month sub-study where If Americans Knew did actually examine news stories from start to finish, the group found the Times reported 82 percent of Palestinians killed. That is, Weir's statistics show that most Palestinian deaths are in fact reported in the newspaper.

Weir further manipulates the data by treating an attack mentioned more than once as more than one death. So when the Times mentioned the killing of a 3-year-old Israeli in front of his kindergarten both on a front page blurb and in a full story on page six, Weir counts this as the Times reporting on two deaths. And when the killing is mentioned twice in the following days' stories about Israel's reaction to the slaying, Weir then claims that the Times reported on "400 percent" of Israeli children's deaths in this period of time.

Since Palestinian violence is often the immediate cause of Israeli counter-actions, the Times often reports the slaying of Israelis, and then mentions the attack again in a story about Israel's reaction to the killing. For example, the opening paragraph of a Jan. 15, 2005 story stated:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Friday that all government officials cut ties with the Palestinian Authority and that the Gaza Strip be sealed until Palestinian leaders moved to curb terrorism. He issued the order a day after Palestinian militants killed six Israelis at a checkpoint on the Gaza border.

Since the previous day's report broke news of this attack on the checkpoint, the attack was cited twice by the Times. Weir's study, then, misleadingly counts these two news stories, each referring to the killing of six Israelis, as having reported on the death of twelve Israelis.
(Source: Camera.org)

The above is just an example of how Weir distorts the actual articles to create the impression that the news medias are bias toward Israel. Weir uses similar techniques to manipulate data in many of her other media analysis'. She accuses the American media of distorting information to Israel's benefit, when the reality is SHE is the one distorting and manipulating information. While Weir over reports Israeli "wrongdoings" she almost NEVER mentions Palestinian violence (unless she doesn't view that as a wrongdoing). All the articles on her site are negative towards Israel, while not a single one is negative about the Palestinians. Nowhere on the site does she mention Palestinians who murder innocent Israeli women and children. Nowhere on the site does she mention the ruthless torture of Palestinians by the PA or Hamas. The site's stated purpose is to: "inform and educate the American public on issues of major importance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media" And after all we've mentioned in this analysis of the site, who is the one unreporting, underreporting and misreporting? Does Weir really think she is fair and balanced? Does she really think she is giving both sides of the conflict? How is she any better than what she is condemning?

Intimidation

This coming soon... check back!

On one page of IfAmericansKnew.org this statement is written: "...we recommend that you visit the Independent of London, Ha’aretz Daily, or Al-Jazeera. All three of these international news sources provide more accurate depictions of the current situation in Israel/Palestine, although they still do not provide all the information that American readers need to know." Is she serious? Weir is actually endorsing the partisan Al Jazeera. Not only is she endorsing it, she is even saying it is not anti-Israel enough! For those who don't know, Aljazeera is an Arab-based cable station known for its one-sided anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric. The website of Aljazeera is filled with wacky conspiracy theories such as Zarqawi has already been caught and Nick Berg was killed by American forces as well as many others. Aljazeera glorifies attacks against our soldiers in Iraq and suicide bombings by Palestinian terrorists. Many threatening Al Qaida video tapes get aired first on Aljazeera. To say that Aljazeera provides "accurate descriptions of the current situation" makes me further question Weir's credibility on this issue.

Bulletin on Suicide Bombings

On April 17 2006 there was a suicide bombing in Israel. On April 18 2006 IfAmericansKnew posted an article "Bulletin on Suicide Bombing". Here is a excerpt of the article:

"On Monday, April 17th, a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv killed nine Israelis, the deadliest such bombing in two years. The media provided graphic information on this bombing but omitted considerable information of relevance:

In the last two and a half weeks alone Israeli forces have killed at least 26 Palestinians – at least 5 of them children – and injured 161 Palestinian men, women and children. A college student lost her right eye today after being shot by an Israeli sniper last week.

There have been 369 raids by Israeli forces, mostly into the West Bank. Gaza has undergone sustained shelling by Israeli forces and continued closures, resulting in increasing lack of food and medical supplies. According to UN reports, between March 30 and April 12th, Israeli forces launched 2300 artillery and tank shells and 34 missiles into Gaza."

In other words the Alison is trying to say two things: 1) the Israeli raids into Gaza and the West Bank started the cycle of violence and 2) the media did not report these raids. Like usual, she is wrong on both parts. 

1) The Israeli raids and shelling of the Palestinian territories were provoked by repeated kassam and rocket attacks into Israel by Palestinian militants. Even the Palestinians acknowledge this. It got to the point where the Palestinian residence of Gaza signed a petition demanding that militant groups stop launching attacks from their neighborhoods. Despite what Alison says, the fact is it was the Palestinians who started the cycle of violence by launching kassams and rockets.

2) Alison claims most media outlets didn't cover the raids and shelling that preceded the April 17th suicide bombing. Another lie. I remember Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN mentioning the raids as the bombers' excuse. In fact here is proof that the media fully covered Israel's raids into the territories here, and here.

Prisoners VS Hostages *NEW

On this page Alison has a documentary called "captured soldiers". Alison attempts to equate the three Israelis captured by Palestinian and Lebanese militants to the over 10,700 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. This comparison is misleading and greatly flawed, if not also distorted. In this discussion we must not compare apples to oranges.

A "prisoner" is defined as: a person who is confined in prison or kept in custody, esp. as the result of legal process. The 10,700 Palestinians being held by Israel fall under this definition.

Comparing this to the Israeli soldiers is misleading because the soldiers are NOT a prisoners, they are HOSTAGES.

A "hostage" is defined as: a person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party. That sounds a lot like Shalit's situation to me.

The 10,700+ Palestinians being held by Israel were arrested for numerous reasons, among them being:  Membership of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other Palestinian militant organizations, stone-throwing, assisting militant organizations or "wanted" Palestinians, firearms and explosives offences, and "having blood on their hands". (source) All detainees are given access to lawyers and limited visitation rights. While some have been held indefinitely in "administrative detention", most are eventually charged and/or released.

The Israeli soldiers have been taken for the sole purpose of blackmailing the Israeli government into complying with Hamas and Hezbollah's demands, as well as to intimidate the Israeli people. The Israeli soldiers posed no immidiete security risk to the Palestinian people nor did they commit any crime. No one knows what conditions they are being subject to, and there are no plans to legally charge them with anything.

The conditions in the Israeli prisons are not the best, and there is no doubt that some of the Palestinian detainees are innocent or have been arrested for no reason. Many in the international community, including human rights groups, have condemned the treatment of Palestinian prisoners. However, the prisoner process (as unacceptable as it may be) is clearly outlined by and subject to Israeli military law. The hostages held by Palestinian and Lebanese militants have no due process, no set laws, no access to lawyers, and no one knows the conditions they are being subject to.

If the three Israeli soldiers were criminals or terrorists intending to harm innocent Palestinians or Lebanese citizens, THEN their status would be equal to a Palestinian prisoner.

Likewise, if a Jewish militant or terrorist group were to capture an innocent and unarmed Palestinian and hold him captive demanding the Palestinian government fulfill certain demands, THEN the status of that Palestinian would be comparable to the current status of Shalit.


IfAmericansKnew Influence
As of right now Weir's main audience appears to be mostly radical liberal groups, white supremacist groups, and Islamic extremist groups. Weir's writings regularly show up in sites such as counterpunch.com (Radical liberal site) electronicintifada.org (Islamic extremist site), DavidDuke.com, and VanguardNewsNetwork.com (both white supremacist sites). The majority of mainstream America does not appear to support Weir and her views.

Weir's Credibility
Through out this analysis I have pointed out many issues about the site IfAmericansKnew.org that should make anyone question the credibility of the owner, Alison Weir. She makes a big deal about Israel's past abuse and alleged torture of Palestinian prisoners throughout her site, but she makes no mention of Hamas and the Palestinian Authorities' use of torture against Palestinians (which is also hardly mentioned in the American media). Weir seems to be saying that torturing Palestinians is ok as long as Israel is not doing it. We saw how Weir tried to call the mass immigration of Jewish refugees to Palestine in the 1870's as "Zionist colonialization" when the idea of Zionism wasn't even started until 1890s. Weir downright lies to her readers by saying there are roads built on Palestinian territory that only Jews are allowed to drive on. The roads are open to people of all religions as long as they are not Palestinians. (Once again, TheMiddleEastNow.com condemns Israel for this policy). Weir deliberately attempts to mislead her readers about the media's coverage on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by only counting the first paragraph of the newspaper article and double counting the Israeli deaths when there is a follow-up story. According to some students who have attended Weir's speaches at colleges and universities have reported that Weir mentions a "Zionist/Nazi collaboration" during world war 2 (I have not personally verified this claim). She is referring to the Nazi regimes initial policy of deporting Germany's Jewish population to Palestine. I find it amazing that while she attempts to make a connection between Zionists and Nazis, she makes absolutely no mention of the much more substantiated contacts between the Muslims and the Nazis. She makes no mention of The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, who was one of Hitler's strongest allies during the war.

I cannot refute every single one of Alison Weir's claims about Israel/Palestine since, unlike her, I have not yet been to the region. However based on what I do know and what I have put in this analysis I can confidently discount her credibility on this issue. Since it has been proven that she is misleading people on at least these few issues, what is the guarantee she isn't misleading people about other issues that haven't been covered on here?

This page will be updated as IfAmericansKnew.org adds items to their site. Please show this page to anyone who brings up IfAmericansKnew.

          Click HERE to see a criticism of this analysis

Name: Jeff

Location: University of Connecticut

Comments:

         Thank you for putting up the site showing the flaws in 
         ifamericaknew.org. It's very helpful to have resources like this 
         availible. I am combatting a horrible letter to the editor in my 
         school's newspaper, where I noticed that most of the "facts" provided 
         by the writer of the article were taken from ifamericaknew.org. It 
         is great that you have put up the resources to refute this. Chazak!

Response:

 yea that really concerns me that ifamericansknew is being used as a factual source. if possible email the writer and show her thiis page.yea it sounds like most colleges are having problems with muslim organizations. It is because they are so well    organized. you should try to seek the s  support of non-jews for this. i myself am not jewish, i'm an atheist (i'm an unlikely canidate to support israel). there are non-jews who support israel. also try not to use religion in your arguments, make it completely secular. one should support israel because they are a democracy and a close U.S. ally, not because "god told them to"

Name: Kathleen O'Connor Wang

Location: Santa Barbara, California

Comments:

I'm a Christian Atheist. I guess you are a Jewish Atheist. I read one of your pieces briefly on your website..at the end saying that there is no religious reason for Israel which you reject because you are an atheist. Well there is no secular reason for a state for Jews either. The unilateral decision of Zionists to decide that they should have a Jewish state was neither Balfour's, Britain's or Zionists right to make. A real democracy would have had a referendum among the people who lived within the boundaries. Like was done in East Timor for instance. Balfour did not think that ethnic cleansing should be a part of the formation of a Jewish State nor did Britain. But of course Zionists used terrorism to get rid of the British also. Unfortunately Zionists purged as many non-Jews (Christians and Muslims and others) as they could and continue to do so by State terrorism and illegal land confiscation. Since you are an Illinoisan I guess you are an American too as I am. I found it interesting that there was no indication of who runs the anti Alison Weir site. So I asked. Alison does at least say who she is. I check her site occasionally for statistical information. She's a pretty nice lady.

Response:

i do put my name on many of my writings. i probably should put more information about myself so people know who i am. please understand i am not anti-alison. i have emailed her too and have found she is a nice lady. I, however, disagree with her views. On my page about her site i simply state the inaccuracies of her site. I have stated on the page that alison is a good writer.

as to your question about my religion, i am not jewish. i do not identify myself with any religion. in fact, i have disagreed with many of my jewish readers who claim they have a god given right to Israel.

As for your comment about "there is no secular reason for israel", the balfor declaration was legitimate because it was backed by the league of nations and many other governing bodies. the league of nations back then is similar in authority to the U.N. now.

As for the fictious, but common, claim that the arabs were ethnically cleansed from their land, the fact is the majority of the arabs who were displaced left on their own free will for two reasons: 1. out of fear of an upcoming war between the Jews and Arabs, 2. to help the Arabs destroy the newly established state. Only a small minority of the displaced Arabs were forcibly removed by the Jewish Haganah (such as in Deir Yassin). The Arabs who chose not to leave israel in 1948, still live in israel today with full citizenship rights. If Israel truly ethnically cleansed Arabs, there would not be 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel today.

Another fact which is left out by ifamericansknew and some of israel's other opponents is the land in which the U.N. gave to israel had a clear jewish majority at the time of the resolution. Many of Israel's opponents refer to the fact that the jews only represented 40% of "historic Palestine". This is misleading since "historic Palestine" consists of Israel, gaza, west bank, and the state of Jordan. Israel proper, at the time, had a clear jewish majority.

Name: Kathleen O'Connor Wang

Location: Long Beach, California

Comment:

it was not Britain, Balfour or the United Nations that had the legal or moral right to give Palestine to the Jewish immigrants. Before Herzel's push for Jewish immigration of European Jews the Jewish population was only 10 % in Palestine. The Jews were not the majority in 1948 and even the UN said that the split of Palestine and Israel would be 55 -45 Israeli to Palestine though it was the non-Jewish population that was in the majority. Israel now has more than 78% of ancient Palestine and has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967.The UN also guaranteed the right of return(194) for the Palestinians who were purged.Of course it was deliberate purging of non-Jews. Bennie Morris thinks they should have gotten rid of all of them and many Israelis want them all gone. Surely you have seen "Gas the Arab" graffiti in Hebron? There are archives that document the forced exodus. Palestinian refugees have been asking to go home for decades with their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Israel continues to require that Jews be the majority and has continued to purge Palestinians from the West Bank.It continues to steal land and causes destruction of normal life and commerce by vicious policies such as the destruction of roads and hundreds of check points. Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem and is now building illegal settlements in East Jerusalem. The Wall is cutting off 55,000 Palestinians from their city; Jerusalem. Bethlehem is now also surrounded by the wretched wall. Quiquilya is a virtual prison.
If the Jews as you say had a clear majority in 1948 and they were a democracy; why didn't they have a democratic referendum instead of terrorizing Arabs and wiping out 550 villages purging 750,000 and killing many?
There are many Israeli laws that favor Jews and discriminate against the indigenous population which have no place in a democracy. The most glaring is the so called "right of return" offered to Jews but not the exiled Palestinians.The right of return for Jews includes the Peruvian Indians converted to Judaism in the past few years but not people born in Israel who are non-Jewish and were pushed out in 1948,1967, or 1973 and are being pushed out now by land confiscation and the destruction of the agricultural areas.

Response:

hello. i'm going to answer your email part by part.

as to the "it was not Britain, Balfour or the United Nations that had the legal or moral right to give Palestine to the Jewish immigrants":

The Jews that immigrated to Palestine bought the land they owned legally from absentee landlords. The Balfor declaration only recognized israel as a jewish state.

"The Jews were not the majority in 1948 and even the UN said that the split of Palestine and Israel would be 55 -45 Israeli to Palestine though it was the non-Jewish population that was in the majority."

As for this, i tried to explain this in my last email, i dont think i did a good job. Historic Palestine consists of Israel, Gaza, West Bank, and the State of Jordan. The Jewish population of "Historic Palestine" is irrevelevant to this situation. We are only conerned about the part of Palestine in which was supposed to become israel. The fact is that in 1948, the land that was made into israel had a clear jewish majority. This is not true of Gaza, West Bank, or Jordan. I'm gonna look for a map to try to explain what I am saying better. Gaza, West Bank, and jordan had clear Arab majoritys, and these lands were meant by the U.N. to be an Arab state. The towns and areas that the U.N. gave to Israel had a clear jewish majority (i will find a map to show you what i am saying)

"Bennie Morris thinks they should have gotten rid of all of them and many Israelis want them all gone. Surely you have seen "Gas the Arab" graffiti in Hebron?"

It is true that many Jews in Israel want the Arabs out. However, it is also true that MUCH MORE Arabs (not all arabs) in the Arab world want the Jews and Christians (and atheists) out of their land as well. Non-muslims in muslim countrys suffer much more racism than non-jews in israel. The anti-Arab discrimination in Israel is no worse than discrimination faced by minorities in any other counry in the world. Despite this, it is a fact that israel's arabs live better than any other arabs in the middle east. Israel's arabs are the only arabs in the middle east which have the right to free speech and the right to vote for the head of their government. Israel's arabs have a higher standard of living than any other arabs in the middle east. Please see this page for more information on israeli arabs (www.themiddleeastnow.com/isrealiarabs).

Israel continues to require that Jews be the majority and has continued to purge Palestinians from the West Bank.

There is no such law in Israel. Sure many israelis want it that way, but there is no law in the israeli books requiring Israel to be a Jewish Majority.

"If the Jews as you say had a clear majority in 1948 and they were a democracy; why didn't they have a democratic referendum instead of terrorizing Arabs and wiping out 550 villages purging 750,000 and killing many?"

Why should israel have had a referendum to establish their own state? Many countries in the region were created in the same time, and in the same way as israel and none of these countries had referendums to their existence. Did America have a referendum on its existence? Why does only israel need to have a referendum?

"There are many Israeli laws that favor Jews and discriminate against the indigenous population which have no place in a democracy. The most glaring is the so called "right of return" offered to Jews but not the exiled Palestinians."

You couldn't be farther from the truth on this one. Israeli law strictly prohibits discrimination against non-Jews. Israel is the only country in the middle east which guarantees equal citizenship among all its citizens. surely you can't argue that israel is anything close to countrys such as, saudi arabia, in which practicing any religion other than islam is stricltly prohibited. (www.themiddleeeastnow.com/saudioppression). Arabs make up a large part of Israeli society. 10% of the Israeli kessenet is Arabs. an Arab Israeli is on the Israeli supreme court. No other country in the middle east (with iran as a possible exception) has any minorities in their governments.

You also mention Israel's wall. I do not like the idea of the wall, but the way i see it is the wall can always be removed, but the lives that will be saved on both sides by the wall can never be replaced. once the palestinian government cracks down on terrorist groups like hamas, i'm sure israel will take the wall down.

As for israel's occupation, they began occupying gaza, west bank, and the golan, for the sole purpose of securing their borders from hostile enemies. However, it is my personal belief that they should never have built settelments on this land, and they should have withdrawn from the land once they made peace with the countries. And i do not believe they should have ever occupied East Jerusalem. The occupation of East Jerusalem was largely religious based and not security based like the other lands. As an atheist, i do not recogize religion, or god as a reason to do anything.

Name: Brent

Location: Unspecified

Comment:

I thank you for this very reasonable site with balanced information--a rare find when it comes to this conflict.
There is one small error I noticed concerning bulldozed houses:

"What Weir doesn't mention on the site is the only times a Palestinian house would be demolished is when the house belongs to a terrorist or a family member of a terrorist or if the house was used to promote terrorism."

There have been incidences of neighborhoods being demolished because they were too close to the Syrian (or perhaps it was Jordan) border and tunnels were being built to run weapons in in *some* of the houses. But houses that weren't directly "promoting terrorism" were destroyed also to prevent the tunnels being re-dug once the offending house was destroyed. Although there were extenuating circumstances--people were apparently told not to build there beforehand. But since this is a sensitive subject in which any ommisions are often seen as delibirate misinformation I thought you might like to clear that up. I understand why you would not bother with the information, as it isn't a general Israeli policy, but I noticed that you seem to be being careful with your accuracy, and may have overlooked that. 

Name: Idan Graive

Location: Israel

Comment:

Name: Nicolas Dolhem

Location: Belgium

Comment:

Dear sir,

“The truth is the first wave of Jewish immigration that the site is referring too (which started in 1870) was in no way politically or nationally motivated. It was a large group of Jewish refugees from various countries around the world attempting to escape persecution. At that time they had no intention of creating a state of Israel ”

I’d advise you to read certain books surrounding the ‘epic’ figure Theodor Herzl.
That would certainly restrain any rational person to think that “they had no intention of creating a state”.

Furthermore, what I find astonishing is that you mention the fact that Alison Weir mentions time and time again several resolutions that actually all mean the same thing. I think you’re quite right to point that out.

But what you didn’t point out or mention is what those resolutions actually mean.

If you have an international organization that writes 17 resolutions with the same subject and the same basic demand “withdrawal from Lebanon”, it’s quite strange that you condemn a person using this information instead of condemning the perpetrating instance.

I can just advise anyone that is interested in this particular subject to read: “Le crime occidental” de Vivianne Forrester, which, for me, gives the most complete analysis of the problem.

Name: Patrick Regan

Location: Binghamton NY

Comment:

I have read with interest your report about the organization “If Americans Knew” (http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/ifamericansknew.html), particularly the section on the question of Palestinian terrorism vs. resistance.  You mention that other freedom movements did not target civilians and in fact detail a few of the more prominent movements, including those against the Nazis.  I wonder how you fit Irgun and the early efforts of the Zionists movement into this framework.  Specifically I ask that you comment on a NY Times report that reports on terrorist bombings what we today know of as Israel .  

 The NY Times reports on December 14, 1947 that three bombings by Irgun resulted in 19 civilian fatalities and 67 injuries.  The victims: British, American, and Palestinians.  The first bombing of the day involved a homemade bomb thrown from a taxi into a crowd gathering to get on a bus; the second into a crowded café; in the third a truck owned by a British company was destroyed.  On that date the future prime minister of Israel was the leader of the group that perpetrated these crimes. 

Are these crimes comparable to the ones committed by the Palestinians?  Were these bombings justifiable because they were based on an independence movement?  Or are they deniable as acts perpetrated by Irgun?

I’m just curious how you parse up the legitimacy and tactics of independence movements.

 Thanks.

Response:

yes. as far as i am concerned the irgun of 1947 was a terrorist organization. but no one is attempting to justify their acts or label them "resistance" movements, like they are doing with palestinian terrorists.